=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2555/paper14
|storemode=property
|title=University Students’ Use and Preferences of Digital Technology in the Peruvian
Highlands
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2555/paper14.pdf
|volume=Vol-2555
|authors=Eliana Gallardo-Echenique,Manuel Anchapuri
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/cisetc/Gallardo-Echenique19
}}
==University Students’ Use and Preferences of Digital Technology in the Peruvian
Highlands==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2555/paper14.pdf
University Students’ Use and Preferences of Digital
Technology in the Peruvian Highlands
Eliana Gallardo-Echenique1, Manuel Anchapuri2
1
Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas. Prolongación Primavera 2390, Lima 15023, Peru.
eliana.gallardo@upc.pe
2
Universidad Nacional del Altiplano Puno. Av. Floral 1153, Puno 21001, Peru.
manchapuri@unap.edu.pe
Abstract. In recent literature, there has been much discussion about student use
of digital technology for academic and learning purposes undertaken in most
developed countries. However, most of the empirical literature has ignored
developing countries like Peru. This paper reports on research into how first-
year university students communicate, their general study habits, and how
digital technologies are used to support academic activities. A quantitative
approach using a descriptive design is proposed for this study. A convenience
sample of 201 students from a variety of backgrounds (cultural, social and
economic) participated in the study. The findings evidence that learners’
technology use in this university is considerably more constrained than “Net
generation” discourse suggest. Participants are not making good uses of digital
technologies that “work best” for them taking in consideration they were
enrolled in online instructional modality. Further investigations are
recommended to find out the reasons behind these findings.
Keywords: Digital technology, social media, smartphone, Peru
1 Introduction
The digital age has a significant influence on the ways educational institutes and
higher education establishments function [1]. However, what distinguishes the digital
age from all previous ages is that the pace of technology advancements speeds up [2].
The increase in the use of digital technologies has had a significant impact on society
and is leading to massive changes in the way we live, work, think, learn,
communicate and relate to each other [2], [3]. Digital technology refers to a wide
range of technologies which store and transmit information in digital form and could
be hardware-based or software-based [4, 5]. Digital technologies are integral to the
future of higher education settings in all developed countries [6, 7].
In most developed countries, technology has penetrated every classroom [8] and it
is embedded into university students’ lives [9], [10]. Learners who have grown up
Copyright c 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons
License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
grown up with technology are coming to our educational institutions with a range of
digital skills and achievements using a variety of digital tools [11]. They are generally
inclined to use and to have favorable attitudes toward technology [10]. Most recently,
the popularization of social media (e.g. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Edmodo)
[12], [13] and mobile messaging applications (e.g. Kik, Snapchat, and WhatsApp)
[14] have changed this landscape even further [12], [14] and have attracted millions
of users, especially college students [11]. On average, undergraduate students
continually update features and spend more over 6 hours per week using social media
sites, primarily through their mobile devices (e.g. smartphone) [13], [15]. However,
the same cannot be said for many developing countries like Peru which have limited
access to digital technologies and restricted opportunities for their use [11].
In recent literature, there has been much discussion about student use of digital
technology for academic and learning purposes undertaken in most developed
countries: e.g. in Australia [6, 7, 16], Canada [17–19], China [20], Germany [21],
Spain [22, 23], Sweden [24], Switzerland [25, 26], United Kingdom [27, 28], United
States [29] and others. However, most of the empirical literature has ignored
developing countries like Peru. There is a lack of research in Peruvian universities on
the relationship between the use of digital technologies and how students currently
use them to learn, work, create and engage in a society which is shaped by them [11,
30, 31].
Peru, a multi-racial, multi-linguistic, multi-cultural and multi-ethnic country is a
developing country located in South America; with a population today of more than
31 million, of which more than 60% is mestizo [32]; and, only 28% of Peruvian
households had an Internet connection [33]. In Peru, the percentage of the population
aged 15 years and older enroll in higher education is currently 19.7%, according to
the National Household Survey 2017 [32], which is below the average in the Latin
American region, where the gross enrolment ratio in higher education is 41%;
nevertheless, there are serious concerns about the quality and performance of these
institutions [34].
In 2014, the Peruvian government approved the new University Law N° 30220
[35] to begin a process of reform of quality assurance for higher education and to
implement significant changes in the policy structure. This government initiative is in
line with other countries in the region (e.g. Chile and Colombia) that carried out
procedures directed towards to assess and improve their higher education institution's
standards [36].
Peru maintains 21.7% of poverty and 3.8% % of extreme poverty; meanwhile
Junin - where this study was conducted - poverty fluctuates between 23% and 26.2%
and extreme poverty fluctuates between 4.7% y 6.5% [37]. Junin is a region located in
the central highlands of Peru, and his capital is Huancayo at 3,271 metres above sea
level, that belongs to the Quechua region where official languages are Spanish and
Quechua.
With these issues in mind, this paper sheds new light on what and how, learners
possess, use and learn with technology. Thus, this paper reports on research into how
first-year university students communicate, their general study habits, and how digital
technologies are used to support academic activities.
2 Methodology
This research takes place within an international research project, “Digital Learners in
Higher Education” (http://digitallearners.ca) that is investigating how postsecondary
learners in different institutional contexts and cultures think about digital technologies
and how they use them in their social and educational lives. A quantitative approach
using a descriptive design is proposed for this study [38] to become more familiar
with phenomena and to gain new insight [39].
Data collection took place in a private university located at Huancayo city in the
Mantaro Valley of Junin Region, in the central Andes of Peru. The university offers
both face-to-face learning and an internet-based learning system. The inclusion
criteria included: (a) Peruvian students enrolled in online instructional modality, (b)
being aware of time and place, (c) willingness to participate in research, and (d) being
Spanish-speaking respondents. A convenience sample of 201 students participated in
the study. Students come from a variety of backgrounds (cultural, social and
economic) within Peru.
The “Survey of Student Communication & Study Habits”, developed by Bullen
and colleagues [40] in Canada, was used as the data collection method. The online
questionnaire uses a four point Likert scale with options ranging with 74 items. The
survey instrument included demographic information; how and where first-year
students communicates with peers and professors; and, their study habits.
For use in a new country, language and culture, the questionnaire was adapted and
translated to Spanish by experts from the “Universitat Oberta de Catalunya” (UOC), a
Spanish open online university [22]. The terminology of this Spanish version was
adapted to the Peruvian context, by some professors and proofreaders of the “Oficina
de Virtualización de Contenidos” who gave their expert advice in respect of the
pragmatic language level and the appropriateness of the questionnaire. The process of
adapting this survey considers (a) the appropriateness of each item of the original
instrument in terms to represent such concepts in the Peruvian target population; and,
(b) the semantic, linguistic, and contextual equivalence between the original and the
translated items [41, 42]. For example, in Spain, cellphone is translated as
“teléfono móvil”, but in Peru (also in all Latin America) is translated as “celular”.
The questionnaire was self-administered and lasted an average of 30 minutes. The
data were processed using the software IBM SPSS Statistics, version 25. The
Cronbach’s alpha reliability values for the items was .943, indicating a high level of
reliability.
2.1 Ethical Considerations
Permission to reproduce and use the research instrument was granted from the
authors. Information about the research question, aim and the benefits of the study
was included in the information letter. The completion of the questionnaire was
considered as informed consent. Prior to taking the survey, the students were told that
their responses were anonymous and they were kept in a safe place where only the
main researcher and authors had access.
3 Findings and Discussions
Students' ages ranged from 17 to 59 (mean of 29.36 and standard deviation of 10.09)
and 58.2% were males. Respondents were all first-year students of the Faculty of
Engineering (43.3%), Faculty of Health Sciences (6.5%), Faculty of Law (9%),
Faculty of Business Sciences (36.8%) and Faculty of Humanities (4.5%).
Students were asked to indicate their views about what they do when they have a
doubt about their courses’ content (Table 1). According to their responses, students
prefer not to talk to a professor (76%) and classmates (75%). Most of them are
reluctant to talk to a tutor, coordinator (67%), work colleague (81%) and others
students not in the program (84%). Over half (57%) of the students prefer search
online. The majority (79%) of them try to address it on their own. Consistent with
previous studies [11], [43]; these findings suggest that participants were likely to use
of informal help sources (search online and try to address it by themselves). However,
they did not prefer formal resources (professor, tutor and coordinator). It is unclear
why they are not seeking help from formal channels, but institutions, institutional
leaders and policy makers need to acknowledge that learners are using informal help-
seeking options more than institutional channels [11], [43].
Table 1. What students do when they have a question course’s content.
Preferences N S O A M SD
a. Talk to a professor 24% 52% 19% 5% 2.06 0.804
b. Talk to a classmate 42% 33% 18% 6% 1.90 0.924
c. Talk to a tutor, coordinator, etc. 26% 41% 25% 7% 2.13 0.893
d. Talk to others students not in
56% 28% 12% 4% 1.65 0.848
the program
e. Talk to another person (e.g.
17% 38% 32% 13% 2.40 0.923
family, friends, etc.)
f. Search online 5% 38% 35% 22% 2.74 0.856
g. Talk to a work colleague 44% 37% 13% 5% 1.80 0.872
h. Try to address it on my own
2% 19% 46% 33% 3.09 0.772
(e.g. read the course material)
Note. Scale: N=Never, S=Seldom. O=Often, A=Always, M=Mean, SD= Standard deviation
Students were asked to indicate how often students use digital technologies (e.g. e-
mail, SMS or instant messaging, social networks, videoconferencing using Skype and
Moodle) to communicate with classmates and professors about courses. The majority
of students do not preferred face-to-face discussions with classmates (72%) and
professors (72%). This finding is in contrast to previous studies [11], [44], which
found face-to-face was faster and more effective channel of communicating with
professors for course-related matters than using digital technologies. To communicate
with their professors and classmates, most of students do not preferred e-mail
(institutional and personal), instant messages, text message, social networks and
videoconfering systems (Table 2).
These respondents are not using a variety of technologies and this result contradicts
the “Net generation” discourse [45] who have been characterized as being confident,
familiar with and comfortable using technology [46]. Most students come to the
university with few digital skills and the majority of them do not have sufficient
levels of competence across a wide range of devices and applications. Generally
speaking, digital competence consists of the skills and practices that people should
have to use and apply digital technologies in a meaningful way for learning, working
and leisure time in a knowledge society [47]. Most Peruvians students do not develop
sufficient digital competence during upper secondary school and are not able to take
care of their own learning activities with technology. It seems that both home
environment, school and individual preferences seem to play an important role on
digital competence [47, 48].
Besides, these learners did not use the advantages that that mobile devices allow;
especially in relation to relationships (peers, classmates, family, relatives). In recent
years, smartphones represent an important part of students’ life, but these students are
not taking full advantage to get in touch with their classmates and professors;
especially if they are taking online classes. They could stay connected with them
through different numerous smartphone applications that generally offer fast and cost-
effective communication [49]. These results highlight that students have access to a
few digital tools and are not open to using digital technology for academic learning
and achievement.
Table 2. Student communication preferences with classmates and professors.
Preferences Type N S O A M SD
a. Institutional e-mail Classmates 15% 42% 26% 17% 2.30 1.205
account Professors 12% 32% 36% 20% 2.53 1.175
b. Personal e-mail Classmates 30% 33% 25% 11% 1.87 1.383
account (e.g. Hotmail,
Gmail) Professors 44% 30% 17% 8% 1.45 1.410
c. Instant messaging Classmates 23% 29% 21% 26% 2.27 1.463
(e.g. MSN, WhatsApp) Professors 62% 24% 6% 7% 0.97 1.336
d. Text message via Classmates 37% 33% 18% 11% 1.66 1.417
cellphones Professors 66% 22% 8% 4% 0.85 1.241
e. Social networks Classmates 58% 27% 10% 5% 1.03 1.305
(LinkedIn, Facebook,
Twitter) Professors 71% 22% 4% 3% 0.69 1.133
f. Videoconferencing Classmates 35% 35% 18% 12% 1.72 1.408
systems (e.g. Skype,
Hangouts) Professors 62% 23% 9% 5% 0.96 1.309
Classmates 29% 36% 21% 14% 1.92 1.394
g. Talking via phone
Professors 58% 25% 10% 7% 1.07 1.364
Classmates 31% 41% 23% 5% 1.72 1.270
h. Talking in person
Professors 42% 30% 19% 8% 1.51 1.404
i. Moodle (forum, wiki, Classmates 12% 38% 32% 18% 2.44 1.152
chat) Professors 15% 29% 36% 20% 2.47 1.249
Note. Scale: N=Never, S=Seldom. O=Often, A=Always, M=Mean, SD= Standard deviation
Regarding the students’ study habits (Table 3), 66% of students prefer to work on
assignments on their own when doing homework and assignments; 66% prefer to
learn by themselves; and, 67% prefer not study with friends. This finding is in
contrast to the prevailing “Net generation” discourse [38], which suggests learners are
characterized as confident and team-oriented [50]. Besides, 52% of participants are
not doing several different tasks at the same time. This result contradicts the
prevailing “Net generation” discourse [45], which suggests today’s higher education
students are not only multitasking (being engaged in several tasks simultaneously).
Students (78%) prefer clear instructions before trying something new. Consistent with
other studies [7], [51], learners need detailed instructions or guidelines with specific
goals, tasks, deadlines, and guidelines in order to achieve expected learning outcomes.
Table 3. Student’s study habits.
Preferences N S O A M SD
a. Work on my own 8% 26% 32% 34% 2.92 0.956
b. With friends 25% 42% 26% 7% 2.15 0.876
c. Learn for myself 8% 28% 34% 30% 2.86 0.938
d. Get clear instructions 4% 18% 35% 43% 3.16 0.865
e. Used to doing several different tasks 17% 35% 28% 19% 2.50 0.991
Note. Scale: N=Never, S=Seldom. O=Often, A=Always, M=Mean, SD= Standard deviation
5 Conclusions
The students do not fit in the digital generation profile. The findings evidence that
learners’ technology use in this university is considerably more constrained than “Net
generation” discourse suggest. Most digital technologies are not an integral part of
their students’ lifestyles in higher education and their use for academic purposes is
limited. In this study, participants are not making good uses of digital technologies
that “work best” for them taking in consideration they were enrolled in online
instructional modality. Further investigations are recommended to find out the reasons
behind these findings and to systematize knowledge about how to understand learner's
digital competence. The authors suggest that it is important to identify the important
role that this institution have to play in assisting learners in appropriating and making
effective use of digital technologies. This could be a way of addressing the impact of
the digital age on teaching and learning.
This study outlines the validation and cultural adaptation of the “Survey of Student
Communication & Study Habits” to the Peruvian context. To our knowledge, this is
the first study that attempted to assess the validity and reliability of this survey in the
Peruvian context. This version of the survey has good internal consistency. The
practical implication of this study shows that in cross-cultural studies, the use of
instruments that are merely translated does not to ensure consistent, reliable and
accurate results [41].
One of the limitations of this study is the convenience sampling method that limits
the generalizability of the findings. This study only investigated a small sample from
one university in one region of Peru. The data were collected in Junin (Peru), and thus
the generalizability of the findings to other international contexts warrants further
assessment. Future studies should consider using a more geographically diverse
samples. Nonetheless, this is an initial exploration of university students’
communication and their study habits, and the selected sample and instruments used
are helpful in achieving this research goal.
This paper has sought to contribute to a growing body of literature of research
studies in to date in Latin America and the findings highlight differences between
Peruvian university students in our sample (Junin) and previous studies from
developed countries. These findings give a picture of the study habits and the use of
digital technology among Peruvian university learners, and what are the implications
of their use for Higher Education, but further studies should include informants with
more diverse backgrounds in Peruvian universities.
Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank the students involved for their
voluntary participation in this study.
References
1. Corey, L.: A Case Study of iPad Implementation in One Rural Elementary School. J.
Educ. Technol. Syst. 004723951986299 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239519862999.
2. Bates, A.: Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning
for a digital age. Tony Bates Associates Ltd., Vancouver, BC (2015).
3. Gallardo-Echenique, E., Bullen, M., Marqués-Molías, L.: An approach to digital
learners in a Catalonian public face-to-face university. In: Paper presented at ECER
2014: The Past, Present and Future of Educational Research in Europe. , Porto (2014).
4. Hague, C., Williamson, B.: Digital participation, digital literacy and school subjects: A
review of the politicies, literature and evidence. , Bristol, UK (2009).
5. Abbott, C.: E-inclusion: Learning difficulties and digital technologies (Report 15). ,
Bristol, UK (2007).
6. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Aston, R.: What works and why? Student perceptions of
‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning. Stud. High. Educ. 42,
1567–1579 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007946.
7. Henderson, M., Selwyn, N., Finger, G., Aston, R.: Students’ everyday engagement
with digital technology in university: exploring patterns of use and ‘usefulness.’ J.
High. Educ. Policy Manag. 37, 308–319 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1034424.
8. Gurung, B., Rutledge, D.: Digital learners and the overlapping of their personal and
educational digital engagement. Comput. Educ. 77, 91–100 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.012.
9. Gallardo-Echenique, E.: An integrative review of literature on learners in the digital
era. Stud. Paedagog. 19, 161–184 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2014-4-8.
10. Dahlstrom, E., Bichsel, J.: ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information
Technology, 2014 (ECAR Research report). EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and
Research (ECAR), Louisville, CO (2014).
11. Gallardo-Echenique, E.E., Bullen, M., Marqués-Molías, L.: Student communication
and study habits of first-year university students in the digital era. Can. J. Learn.
Technol. 42, 1–21 (2016). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.21432/T2D047.
12. Moghavvemi, S., Sulaiman, A., Jaafar, N.I., Kasem, N.: Social media as a
complementary learning tool for teaching and learning: The case of youtube. Int. J.
Manag. Educ. 16, 37–42 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.12.001.
13. Abney, A.K., Cook, L.A., Fox, A.K., Stevens, J.: Intercollegiate Social Media
Education Ecosystem. J. Mark. Educ. (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475318786026.
14. Nguyen, D.: The university in a world of digital technologies: Tensions and
challenges. Australas. Mark. J. 26, 79–82 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.05.012.
15. Casey, S.: 2016 Nielsen social media report. Social studies: A look at the social
landscape. The Nielsen Company, New York, NY, US (2017).
16. Kennedy, G.E., Judd, T.S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., Krause, K.-L.: First year
students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australas. J.
Educ. Technol. 24, 108–122 (2008).
17. Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Qayyum, A.: Digital Learners in Higher Education: Looking
Beyond Stereotypes. In: Bastiaens, T. and Ebner, M. (eds.) Proceedings of World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2011.
pp. 678–687. AACE, Lisbon, Portugal (2011).
18. Morgan, T., Bullen, M.: Crossing boundaries: Exploring social and academic uses of
technology in Higher Education. In: Brannon-Hamilton, M., McMinn, S., and Moeini,
H. (eds.) International Perspectives on Technology-Enhanced Learning IPTEL 2013
Conference Proceedings. p. 9. The University of British Columbia: Faculty of
Education, Vancouver, BC (2013).
19. Bullen, M., Morgan, T.: Digital learners not digital natives. La Cuestión Univ. 60–68
(2011).
20. Xu, S., Yang, H.H., MacLeod, J., Zhu, S.: Social media competence and digital
citizenship among college students. Converg. Int. J. Res. into New Media Technol.
135485651775139 (2018). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517751390.
21. Bond, M., Marín, V.I., Dolch, C., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O.: Digital
transformation in German higher education: student and teacher perceptions and usage
of digital media. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 15, 1–20 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0130-1.
22. Romero, M., Guitert, M., Sangrà, A., Bullen, M.: Do UOC students fit in the Net
generation profile? An approach to their habits in ICT use. Int. Rev. Res. Open
Distance Learn. 14, 158–181 (2013).
23. Gros, B., Garcia, I., Escofet, A.: Beyond the net generation debate: A comparison
between digital learners in face-to-face and virtual universities. Int. Rev. Res. Open
Distance Learn. 13, 190–210 (2012).
24. Olofsson, A.D., Lindberg, O.J., Fransson, G.: Students’ voices about information and
communication technology in upper secondary schools. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 35,
82–92 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-09-2017-0088.
25. Rapetti, E., Cantoni, L.: Reconsidering “Gen Y” & Co: From minding the gap to
overcoming it [Special issue]. Eur. J. Open, Distance E-Learning – EURODL. 1–13
(2013).
26. Rapetti, E., Picco, A., Vannini, S.: Is mobile learning a resource in higher education?
Data evidence from an empirical research in Ticino. 7, 47–57 (2011).
27. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., Vojt, G.: Are digital natives a myth or reality?
University students’ use of digital technologies. Comput. Educ. 56, 429–440 (2011).
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004.
28. Helsper, E.J., Eynon, R.: Digital natives: where is the evidence? Br. Educ. Res. J. 36,
503–520 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989227.
29. Thompson, P.: Communication technology use and study skills. Act. Learn. High.
Educ. 18, 257–270 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417715204.
30. Gallardo-Echenique, E.E., Marqués Molías, L., Bullen, M.: Students in higher
education: Social and academic uses of digital technology. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High.
Educ. 12, 25–37 (2015). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2078.
31. Calderón, A., Meroño, L., MacPhail, A.: A student-centred digital technology
approach: The relationship between intrinsic motivation, learning climate and
academic achievement of physical education pre-service teachers. Eur. Phys. Educ.
Rev. 1–22 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X19850852.
32. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI): Perfil Sociodemográfico del
Perú. Censos Nacionales 2017: XII de Población, VII de Vivienda y III de
Comunidades Indígenas. , Lima, Perú (2018).
33. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI): Perú: Características de las
viviendas particulares y hogares. Acceso a servicios básicos. In: Censos Nacionales
2017: XII de Población, VII de Vivienda y III de Comunidades Indígenas. INEI, Lima,
Perú (2017).
34. Guerrero, G., Sugimaru, C., Cussianovich, A., De Fraine, B., Cueto, S.: Education
Aspirations among Young People in Peru and their Perceptions of Barriers to Higher
Education (Working paper No. 148). Oxford Department of International
Development (ODID), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK (2016).
35. Congreso de la República del Perú: Ley Universitaria No. 30220,
https://www.sunedu.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Ley-universitaria-30220.pdf,
(2014).
36. British Council: The reform of the peruvian university system: Internationalisation,
progress, challenges and opportunities. British Council, Lima, Perú (2016).
37. Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática (INEI): Evolución de la pobreza
monetaria 2007-2017 (Informe técnico). INEI, Lima, Perú (2018).
38. Creswell, J.W.: Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousands Oaks, CA (2014).
39. Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K.: Research methods in education. Routledge,
London; New York (2007).
40. Bullen, M., Morgan, T., Belfer, K., Qayyum, A.A.: The digital learner at BCIT and
implications for an e-strategy. In: Paper presented at 2008 Research Workshop of the
European Distance Education Network (EDEN), Researching and promoting access to
education and training: The role of distance education and e-learning in technology-
enhanced environments. , Paris (2008).
41. Borsa, J.C., Damásio, B.F., Bandeira, D.R.: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of
psychological instruments: Some considerations. Paid. (Ribeirão Preto). 22, 423–432
(2012).
42. Arafat, S., Chowdhury, H., Qusar, M., Hafez, M.: Cross cultural adaptation and
psychometric validation of research instruments: a methodological review. J. Behav.
Heal. 5, 129 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5455/jbh.20160615121755.
43. Qayyum, A.: Student help-seeking attitudes and behaviors in a digital era. Int. J. Educ.
Technol. High. Educ. 15, 1–16 (2018). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-
018-0100-7.
44. Kira, A., Nichols, D.M., Apperley, M.: Human communication in customer-agent-
computer interaction: Face-to-face versus over telephone. Comput. Human Behav. 25,
8–20 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.013.
45. Oblinger, D.: Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the “New
Students.” Educ. Rev. 38, 36–47 (2003).
46. Gallardo-Echenique, E.E., Marqués-Molías, L., Bullen, M., Strijbos, J.-W.: Let’s talk
about digital learners in the digital era. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 16, 156–
187 (2015). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2196.
47. Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., Kantosalo, A.: Digital competence – an
emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Educ. Inf. Technol.
21, 655–679 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4.
48. Hatlevik, O.E., Guomundsdóttir, G.B., Loi, M.: Digital diversity among upper
secondary students: A multilevel analysis of the relationship between cultural capital,
self-efficacy, strategic use of information and digital competence. Comput. Educ. 81,
345–353 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.019.
49. Ellanti, P., Moriarty, A., Coughlan, F., McCarthy, T.: The use of WhatsApp
smartphone messaging improves communication efficiency within an Orthopaedic
Surgery Team. Cureus. 9, 1–5 (2017). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1040.
50. Howe, N., Strauss, W.: Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. Vintage
Original, New York, NY, USA (2000).
51. Martin, C.A., Tulgan, B.: Managing the Generation Mix: From Urgency to
Opportunity. HRD Press, Amherst, MA (2006).